You are looking at this from a very narrow viewpoint. Unless there is intent to deceive, it's a perfectly legitimate way to do business and something that has happened since the beginning of pressed glass (reread Slack). Moulds have been sold from company to company; and companies have reused their own moulds years after the first production run stopped. Why should the greater buying public not enjoy the designs of the past and businesses reap the benefits? Most of these items are not sold as collectibles; they are sold as decorative or functional items. Unfortunately, there are more non-collectors than collectors. It happens in all areas of life; should we ban miniskirts or lava lamps to protect the vintage clothing or lamp collectors? What about reproduction furniture or the "17th and 18th century" glasses made in the 19th and 20th centuries? Some of the older stuff now has value in it's own right.

quote from Lustrousstone today.....'should we ban miniskirts'.....certainly not ........and you are correct insofar as I am looking at it from the viewpoint of a seasoned collector. It is perhaps a debatable point......but I would maintain that there is a very real reason to value the genuine period article. It's what makes real history, makes people pay a king's ransom for the 'Sunflowers' - and gives the very soul to genuine antiques. Of course, if something is very obviously a 'repro', then no problem - but items like carnival glass from the original moulds is more often than not sold to deceive. I know people will call me a snob, but the non collector doesn't probably deserve the real thing, if only because they take no interest in its intrinsic value or history. Therefore they forfeit the right to having the genuine article. :wsh:

Excuse me, you can only have the "real thing" because an ordinary non-collector consumer popped down to the local glass and china emporium and bought a thingy to decorate the whatsit. Sunflowers is also a bad example, because it wasn't a one-off. Vincent was trying to make a buck doing something he loved.

Quote

but items like carnival glass from the original moulds is more often than not sold to deceive

That statement could get you in trouble!

I too very much appreciate the real thing; that's not my point. Should I send my 70+ year-old 1930s uranium Sowerby diving Dolphins bowl back because it reused a mould from 1882?

Quality doesn't always suffer; moulds can be retooled and, in this day and age, easily recreated. Businesses can't sell what the public doesn't want.

But then, I don't collect pressed glass, or prints of paintings, or any "limited edition" reproductions of things.If I did want a "drunken bricklayer" vase (which I really don't) I'd personally prefer to pay less for a cheaper modern "copy" than an "original" - given the originals are all just copies anyway.

Logged

Cheers, Sue (M)

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of."-- Confucius

'but items like carnival glass from the original moulds is more often than not sold to deceive' - I will clarify that comment for the benefit of anyone whom I may have confused..........in that - if there is the intention to imply that a piece is period, when it has been produced in modern times, then that is deception - whether it comes from the original mould or not. Most non collectors that I know, understandably believe that carnival glass was something that originated in the early C20 and petered out perhaps somewhere in the middle of the C20. You and I know differently, of course. Auction houses the world over make their living form selling things which, if made yesterday, would have but a fraction of the value that they do in fact realize - we value enormously the very fact that something is period.

I generally do agree with the statement " Unless there is intent to deceive, it's a perfectly legitimate way to do business", I have never had a problem with the vast majority of repros that originally did not represent subtantial value (run of the mill pieces). I would add that it all depends on whom has the mold & the piece derived from the mold placed in production. Unfortunate there are numerous cases involving certain molds (I'll use a Cambridge piece as an example) whereby they are placed in production to deceive simply because the piece is of subtantial value & this applies to many molds from many manufacturers when a piece exhibits subtantial value that has nothing to do with an item being produced for functional or decorative value. Fenton for instance has owned a number of Cambridge molds for years & they have always taken measures either by mold modification, a signature added or producing the item in a non-Cambridge color...perfect example of Christine's statement. Now lets take the Cambridge #40 Flying Lady Bowl. I've attached a pic of mine in Crown Tuscan which is the most common color & frankly in this color they are not of subtantial value (excluding the Rockwell silver overlay Seahorse decoration in CT), however in colors other than CT its an entirely different situation where the prices realized run the gauntlet from $2,500 to $5,000 USD. The primary reason NCC went after all these molds was quite simple...we could not gamble that a company such as Fenton would end up purchasing the molds. I won't go into unnecessary detail, however the only thing over the decades that stymied the reproduction of the #40 was the foot of the piece which required specialized training to make & that stood the test ot time for 40 years until 2005 when Summit produced five amethyst prototypes & sold them on eBay, however Summit did make it very clear that these were decorative reproductions. Summit did produce the molded tops in various colors from time to time, however they never made the foot, but still the sales of the tops encouraged individuals to try their hand at reproducing the foot to complete the piece. Fortunately to the best of everyone's knowledge no one ever suceeded. Unfortunatelty its not a perfect world when it comes to old molds being purchased by who knows who or where? Ken

Well Roy at times you find better Cambridge than we do in the states. Looks like the #1126 flat turned up edge 16" Everglade Buffalo bowl in Willow Blue was was introduced in the Spring of 1929. Lady in our local NCC club has the twin to yours. Nice find to say the least. Ken